It's the unions job to protect the individual. That said, it's also their job to protect the member's image for which they represent. When you have peers openly question the high number of women involved (66 by last count by the NYTimes), it makes the NFL Players group as a whole look bad. Though I expect and believe that the NFLPA will "vigorously" defend Watson, I would be surprised if it went to the level of trying to compare it to other previous cases. To do that is to downplay the sheer number of civil claims which if they go south would be a very bad image for the union.
Though some may question an "unprecedented suspension" as to what is important when in reality, 24 civil suits and counting has entered an area of "unprecedented" that the league has ever seen. Does the NFL or the NFLPA really want to set the precedent that 24 plus civil claims is no more serious than single instance that had no criminal charges or civil suits?
The continued drip, drip, drip of more civil suits and still the possibility of criminal charges puts the NFL and the NFLPA in a situation neither wants to be in. Playing this wrong by either side will be a media nightmare the NFL and NFLPA has never seen before.
| 
